Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

lightbox32 writes "The New York Civil Liberties Union released a free smartphone application on Wednesday that allows people to record videos of and report police 'stop and frisk' activity, a practice widely denounced by civil rights groups as mostly targeting minorities and almost never resulting in arrests. The app was thoroughly criticized by the New York Police Department, which said that the tool might prove useful for criminals."

And it needs to be fast and easy. Tap the app, boom, instant video transmission and recording. During an incident is not the time to have to plow through all kinds of crap.

Very true.

Darn...was looking for the iPhone version...then, read it won't be out till later this summer.

At the very least...even on a locked phone (you DO keep your phone locked to keep the cops from looking at it easily, right?)....you need to be able to somehow easily hit the 'record' button quickly and not have it turn off till YOU

I keep Qik video [qik.com] on my phone for this reason. It's an Android app that is developed by (or owned by?) the Skype guys. Videos are "instantly" uploaded online, although there's presumably a small time gap during which the upload is happening that the phone could be stopped/destroyed/etc.

"the police department purposefully targeted black and Hispanic neighborhoods and said officers are pressured to meet quotas as part of the program and are punished if they don't"

"It's taken more than 6,000 guns off the streets in the last eight years, and this year we are on pace to have the lowest number of murders in recorded history"

I could give a fly f*ck about their effectiveness, they're breaking the law to up hold the law?! String them up and hang the bodies in public as an example. What someone in power knowingly and actively ignores the constitution, they need the wrath of God to fall down on them to remind people not to do that.

Above ALL crimes, someone abusing their power and ignoring someone else's rights is the worst.

First of all, it has yet to be determined if the department is actively targeting specific groups. It may be the case, but that's why it is in court. Some groups commit crimes at a higher per-capita rate than others. So thus, a higher arrest rate for one specific group is not in of itself evidence of discrimination.

Second, assuming the police are not profiling, then the stops are legal. I don't like it, b

A Terry stop (and the court WAS wrong to allow them, hopefully a better court will overturn someday) still requires that the cop have a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped committed a crime. That's not what's going on in NYC. They're stopping random people on the street, with no reasonable suspicion.

What the NYCLU is doing here is building a body of evidence for the court challenge to NYC's illegal practice.

The police are the criminals. They are indistinguishable from a gang themselves. The government should be taking weapons away from the sick, sadistic fucks known as 'the police'. The last thing we need is to disarm citizens. We need the guns to defend ourselves against the police. The biggest difference between the police and a real street gang is that the gangs are not afraid of a fair fight. The cowardly police are. That's why they became police. A combination of cowardice and sadism.

I'm black, and I grew up in areas commonly referred to as "the ghetto" by outsiders. Luckily, I took school seriously, and I was able to escape this environment, unlike many of the people I grew up with.

Let's cut the bullshit, though. In most major American cities, it is blacks and Hispanics committing the majority of the crimes. I don't like this fact, but I can't deny it. Nobody else should, either, regardless of his or her background.

I completely understand why the police may target blacks and Hispanics. It's not about race, though. It's about targeting those who are most likely to commit crimes. It's about targeting those whose culture, not race, emphasizes violence, substance abuse, prostitution and crime.

I don't buy the line of reasoning that it's poverty that causes these people to be more inclined to partake in criminal behavior. I grew up in that very same poverty, and the only thing I did differently than many of my peers was to study hard, and avoid drugs and gangs. It was that simple. In fact, if they just avoided spending huge sums of money on drugs, many of them would no longer be poor!

I'm black, and I've traveled extensively throughout America and many other nations. I have never run into problems with the police anywhere. But perhaps that's because I don't go out of my way to wear baggy pants with the waist at my ankles, I don't wear a straight-brimmed baseball hat with the price tag still on it, I don't drive around blaring hip hop or rap music, I don't choose to talk like I'm mentally disabled, and I don't partake in crime.

Many of the people who whine and moan about being targeted by the police merely need to clean up their acts. If they don't act like criminals, and act civilized instead, then they won't raise the suspicion of the police and wouldn't be stopped. Yes, it's that simple.

There's a very common style of dress here (Scotland) that will see you get some attention from the police: baseball cap, large zip-up tracksuit top, tracksuit trousers tucked into socks and trainers. Are the police paying attention to them because of how they dress? Yes, and rightly so. The cap is to hide the face from (usually high-mounted) cameras, top to sling over your arm to cover your hand while it steals goods/purses/phones, trousers in socks so you can simply drop the goods down your trousers, and trainers for running.

So yes, in some cases the way you dress is absolutely a reason for suspicion. Sometimes, not always, granted, but sometimes, if something looks like a duck it might just be a duck.

But perhaps that's because I don't go out of my way to wear baggy pants with the waist at my ankles, I don't wear a straight-brimmed baseball hat with the price tag still on it, I don't drive around blaring hip hop or rap music, I don't choose to talk like I'm mentally disabled, and I don't partake in crime.

Many of the people who whine and moan about being targeted by the police merely need to clean up their acts. If they don't act like criminals, and act civilized instead, then they won't raise the suspicion of the police and wouldn't be stopped. Yes, it's that simple.

Gosh, this is a day I'm obtuse: you say that people who wear baggy pants and straight-brimmed baseball hats, driving around... (etc... up to and excluding the partake in crime)... are, it's that simple, actually performing dirty down acts (which need to be cleaned up) and are most likely to commit crimes?

'Cause if that's what you are saying, then the application the TFA mentions comes not a moment too early: I imagine that at least the ones that are not that likely to be criminals would be happier to have t

Yes and so what? They are still supposed to follow the law and respect peoples liberties. If they are actuallty only targeting criminals, then why do these actions so infrequently lead to arrest?

Besides that...if they are targeting criminals, and these are legal actions within the powers of their job, then why should they fear having their actions documented? If they are doing nothing wrong then they should be happy to have people showing them doing the fine job that they do.

That's because he's a dirty hippie! But seriously, you can't smell a pot user from two feet away outdoors, never mind "from a distance". What you can do is claim that you smell it and then go on national TV and refer to it as narcotics just to make it truly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, which is about 100% more likely to happen.

Isn't a question of probable cause. USING marijuana isn't the issue, POSSESSING it is.

Are they profiling? You betcha!

Is the profile something on the order of "blacks are more likely to commit crimes"? Nope. It's more like "young black men are more likely to have some weed on them, and we can get ~$150 in revenue from ticketing them if we see it"....

Note that sobriety checkpoints don't have to have probable cause either.

If sobriety checkpoints selectively chose who to actually stop, then they would require probable cause for those whom they are stopping.

Short of a cop stopping and frisking every person they walk past, "stop and frisk" requires probable cause. No less in most jurisdictions, they need reasonable suspicion that you are carrying A WEAPON.

A cop stopping and frisking every person that they walk past as a "stop and frisk" is definitely very illegal and unconstitutional. It's not a matter of frisking some people and frisking everyone. They are not allowed to stop and frisk ANYONE without probable cause.

The reason it's different for driving is because you don't have a right to drive. You are licensed to drive, that license can be revoked, and one of the conditions of receiving that license is that you are required to stop for a police officer

So glad I live in MA. Here it is a civil fine for anything under an oz (though paraphenelia is still a crime to posess...go figure)...

So... the courts have ruled that since odour of marijuana doesn't constitute probable cause for possession of more than an oz, they can't even order you out of a parked (not running) car for smoking a joint inside.

I'm going to guess that you've never really ventured out of white, suburban America. You've never spent any significant time in the run-down, black-majority portions of some of the nation's major cities, right? You've never been to the bad parts of Philadelphia, Chicago, N.Y.C., L.A., Detroit, Atlanta or Houston, have you?

The suburban reality that you're familiar with is very different from the reality in the "bad part of town". Maybe only two or three people in your entire subdivision have even faced some sort of serious criminal prosecution, never mind an actual conviction. In the ghetto, however, it's not unusual to find 85% to 90% of the population who has actually served jail time for committing a serious crime. It's truly that bad in some places, even if you choose not to accept this reality.

The gang culture is inherently a criminal one. Committing crime is the most important aspect of this lifestyle. It's virtually impossible to be a part of this culture without having been involved in criminal activity.

When the police see somebody who goes out of their way to be a part of this culture, it's almost guaranteed that such a person has committed some serious criminal activity in the past. We aren't talking about jaywalking, or speeding, or getting a parking ticket. We're talking about real crimes like assault, robbery, and murder. The police have every reason to be suspicious of such people. After all, law-abiding people don't wear their pants around their ankles, don't get their teeth gold-plated although they're simultaneously unemployed and collecting welfare, and they don't go out of their way to appear to be part of a wholly-criminal culture.

It's also not unusual to find that 90% of 'police' gang members have committed some kind of violent crime. They should be stopping and frisking each other. No one has as much disrespect for the law as the police themselves. Police become police because they want to be able to commit violent crimes without having to worry about the law. They would have joined street gangs themselves but they were too afraid of going to jail or getting shot.

Saying the way someone dresses justifiably gets them stopped for stop and frisk is akin to saying that a girl deserves to be raped for the way she dresses, a difference in degree yes but not as much as you might think.

If the cops did the same in a suburban neighborhood you can bet a ton of lawsuits would result and the courts might just come up with different rulings.

It is far less the color of one's skin, but the way people choose to present themselves or act. When one acts like or mimic people who do not care about the law, or don't care about other people, then that automatically puts one at a disadvantage.

?I think you are replying to the wrong person/persons. My +1 insightful comment was about the parent to my posting, which was someone saying that the way people dress/talk/look/behave is a lot more important than the color of their skin. And he is right.

However, I do not at all support the idea of "stop and frisk." Just because someone slightly looks suspicious is not probable cause to search or frisk them.

I'm black, and I've traveled extensively throughout America and many other nations. I have never run into problems with the police anywhere. But perhaps that's because I don't go out of my way to wear baggy pants with the waist at my ankles, I don't wear a straight-brimmed baseball hat with the price tag still on it, I don't drive around blaring hip hop or rap music, I don't choose to talk like I'm mentally disabled, and I don't partake in crime.

What on earth does my method of dress have to do with my level of intelligence? Why does the manner in which I speak imply something about my character? I'm educated, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start dressing like a hipster douche in a GQ ad, and certainly not to avoid being hassled by police that have no business harassing me in the first place. I've been in those situations, too, although when I was growing up, it was the grunge look (flannel shirts, chain wallets) that was a target by our local police. Just wearing a Tool shirt [dementedferret.com] was enough to get me harassed. Hell, just carrying (not even riding, just carrying) a skateboard was enough to get someone harassed by the cops in my town.

I had a 4.0 GPA, perfect attendance, and volunteered, but that all goes out the window because I'm wearing a t-shirt for a band the cops don't like? Come on.

Many of the people who whine and moan about being targeted by the police merely need to clean up their acts.

Why does the manner in which I speak imply something about my character?

Because the world doesn't run in a geekish way. Geeks and people with borderline Asperger's think that everything is a logical deduction and that if there is not a straight chain of 100% causality between dressing in some ways and being a criminal, making the connection must be worthless. There is such a thing as probability, and there's certainly such a thing as social cues.

What on earth does my method of dress have to do with my level of intelligence? Why does the manner in which I speak imply something about my character? I'm educated, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start dressing like a hipster douche in a GQ ad, and certainly not to avoid being hassled by police that have no business harassing me in the first place. I've been in those situations, too, although when I was growing up, it was the grunge look (flannel shirts, chain wallets) that was a target by our local police. Just wearing a Tool shirt [dementedferret.com] was enough to get me harassed. Hell, just carrying (not even riding, just carrying) a skateboard was enough to get someone harassed by the cops in my town.

I had a 4.0 GPA, perfect attendance, and volunteered, but that all goes out the window because I'm wearing a t-shirt for a band the cops don't like? Come on.

I am for freedom, and if I choose to exercise my freedoms in a legal but socially unacceptable manner, I understand society cannot stop me but nor is society required to embrace my behavior.

Your behavior, dress, and speech means everything in the real world. For people we don't know, just met, or see passing by we judge them based on these characteristics. Welcome to the real world. You are free to dress like a thug, even if you have an 200 IQ and use your genius to clone puppies, but I am also free to l

So what you're saying is that you deliberately behaved and presented yourself in a way consistent with people who regularly did things that attracted the cops attention, and can't understand why it attracted attention?

There is a *reason* that the stereotypes that lead to profiling arise -- it's not just because some cop somewhere thinks it's inappropriate. So yes - when you dress and act like a stereotype, you should absolutely expect to get treated as one. It's not fair, but outward appearances and past

Can you give me a legitimate reason why any intelligent, law-abiding person would constantly wear his or her jeans several sizes too large, so that the waist sits on his or her thighs?

Can you give me a legitimate reason why any intelligent, law-abiding person would constantly wear a baseball cap with the price tag or other stickers still on it solely to make it look like it was stolen?

Freedom of expression. Personal preference. Thanks to the Constitution, I don't need a legitimate reason to do these things if I so choose to do so.

Actually, I'd suspect anyone wearing jeans, period. If you don't have enough money to be able to purchase a nice suit with some dress shoes, (maybe cufflinks, but not mandatory) then my suspicion is that you're likely to want to try to steal from me.

Can you give me a legitimate reason why any intelligent, law-abiding person would constantly wear his or her jeans several sizes too large, so that the waist sits on his or her thighs?

Can you give me a legitimate reason why any intelligent, law-abiding person would constantly wear a baseball cap with the price tag or other stickers still on it solely to make it look like it was stolen?

Freedom of expression. Personal preference. Thanks to the Constitution, "because I want to" is a legitimate reason to do these things if I so choose to do so.

Can you give any legitimate reasons for wearing a tie, button-down shirt, and suit-jacket? Fashion is inherently irrational, claiming "conforming with the norms of the dominant culture" is more legitimate than freedom of expression is a chilling position to take.

That said - if you choose to present yourself as a member of a culture which contains an extremely high percentage of criminals, then you have no grounds to complain if people treat you as a criminal yourself. Cultural solidarity is fine, but you'd best take a good long look at the culture you're choosing to support.

And I have no problem with police profiling such people - they are after all voluntarily choosing to announce themselves as a member of a heavily criminal culture. However, there's a big difference between elevated suspicion and harassment, and as the titular enforcers of our legal system the police should conduct themselves in a manner above reproach. If they object to being recorded while exercising the powers we have granted them, then I'd say they are voluntarily choosing to announce themselves as members of a culture that wishes the freedom to abuse those powers, and we should treat them as such.

"Who's watching the watchers?" is a very legitimate question, and the only answer not ripe for abuse is "we the people".

There is English, and there is English, yes. I lived in Hawaii for 3 years where the locals speak pidgin; a mash of English, Hawaiian, and Japanese with loan words borrowed from Samoan, Yap, Palau, and elsewhere. Even there I never really had any trouble understanding anyone.

I remember reading a story a long while back about Will Smith getting pulled over because police thought he stole the car. You know, black guy in a fancy car in a fancy neighborhood.

As much as I agree with what you've said, I also think there are better ways than hiring more police to put more blacks/etc in jail. We need social reform, not stronger/stricter enforcement. Better education, stop making pot illegal, etc. The cycle must be broken.

I agree - I doubt the poster is black. I couldn't see myself saying "yeah, go frisk those white white-collar bastards because they're most likely laundering money!" Skin colour should never be a reason for police harassment - I don't care what the stats say. You treat people like that and they might just say "hey, I'm going to be treated like shit no matter what I do - not much point in being a good person".

Liberty activists in New Hampshire have had a system set up like this for years, Porcupine 411 [porcupine411.com]. It's just a basic audio recording and distribution system, so it works on anyone's cell phone, not just smart phones. Call the number and, typically within less than a minute after you hang up, every subscriber receives either an MMS message on their phone, or an email with an MP3 attachment.

It's a useful thing to be able to videotape cops. It's a check on them ABUSING THEIR POSITION [louisvillepeace.org], which they often do [time.com]. It is also allowed [wikipedia.org] by [barkingdogs.net] Law [legislation.gov.uk]. I'd go one step further than that and say that it's an obligation to self to do all one can to protect oneself since NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT FOR YOU. Do not ever kid yourself that anyone will.

Oh, on the BarkingDogs link: in the UK, you can covertly record a conversation you are involved in (in person or on the phone), as long as one person in the conversation is aware and consents to the conversation being recorded. That'd be the one holding the recording device (ie, you). So, you're covered. 1998 (c.29) Section 36.

I was talking about recording something you're directly involved in, but I know what you mean. Refer the Rodney King incident.

By the way, if I'm getting the shit kicked out of me by a cop or cops at any point in the future (I couldn't imagine why I would be, but there again I don't think King was expecting it either), please, for the love of God, put down the fucking camera and HELP ME!

By the way, if I'm getting the shit kicked out of me by a cop or cops at any point in the future (I couldn't imagine why I would be, but there again I don't think King was expecting it either), please, for the love of God, put down the fucking camera and HELP ME!

Not possible. The only way I could help is if I was somehow able to kill or disable all the cops at the scene. Which is rather unlikely. And if I somehow did so, that makes me Public Enemy #1 (and you get to be #2 even if you had nothing to do wi

A guy shuffles across the screen at 0:58. We hear Officer Birke yell at Williams to stop, then at 1:15 he issues an order to drop the knife Williams is carrying, and at 1:21 he opens fire. He never once identified himself as police. The officer was not charged, because he claimed that what was going on off-screen was that Williams was turning in a way that could threaten Birke. This is despite plenty of counterin

The article alluded to the ACLU keeping the up loaders info along with the video. If that's the case, the person filming could conceivably become a witness and the video used in a court case. As was noted, that could help law enforcement (or defendant claiming police abuse) defending a stop or developing a case against someone who turned out to have committed a crime.

The article alluded to the ACLU keeping the up loaders info along with the video. If that's the case, the person filming could conceivably become a witness and the video used in a court case. As was noted, that could help law enforcement (or defendant claiming police abuse) defending a stop or developing a case against someone who turned out to have committed a crime.

Actually, it was the Police Commissioner saying that:

“It's one thing when providers learn what pizza or movies you like. It’s another to create a database of stops and arrests by police,” [Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne] said in an email statement. “On the plus side, the videos may capture images of suspects in the vicinity of a stop and be helpful to the police in that regard. Presumably, the NYCLU database will [include] the names of the videographers and provide a rich vein of potential witnesses to crimes being investigated by the NYPD and other authorities.”

Translation: we're coming after the videographers. You upload a video, expect a knock at your door from a hostile police officer, demanding to know what you saw, why you were in the area, maybe you were part of the crime, what's your alibi, mind if I look around your house, we're going to need you to come downtown and answer some questions, etc.

“It's one thing when providers learn what pizza or movies you like. It’s another to create a database of stops and arrests by police,” [Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne] said in an email statement. “On the plus side, the videos may capture images of suspects in the vicinity of a stop and be helpful to the police in that regard. Presumably, the NYCLU database will [include] the names of the videographers and provide a rich vein of potential witnesses to crimes being investigated by the NYPD and other authorities.”

Translation: we're coming after the videographers. You upload a video, expect a knock at your door from a hostile police officer, demanding to know what you saw, why you were in the area, maybe you were part of the crime, what's your alibi, mind if I look around your house, we're going to need you to come downtown and answer some questions, etc.

While some individual cop may decide to do that; my experience is that most police agencies don't have the time to waste doing that nor, in general, are even interested in doing what you say. They really do want to catch bad guys while not trampling civil rights, believe it or not. That's not to say they all are perfect or card carrying ACLU members, but they do care about following the law.

“It's one thing when providers learn what pizza or movies you like. It’s another to create a database of stops and arrests by police,” [Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne] said in an email statement. “On the plus side, the videos may capture images of suspects in the vicinity of a stop and be helpful to the police in that regard. Presumably, the NYCLU database will [include] the names of the videographers and provide a rich vein of potential witnesses to crimes being investigated by the NYPD and other authorities.”

Translation: we're coming after the videographers. You upload a video, expect a knock at your door from a hostile police officer, demanding to know what you saw, why you were in the area, maybe you were part of the crime, what's your alibi, mind if I look around your house, we're going to need you to come downtown and answer some questions, etc.

While some individual cop may decide to do that; my experience is that most police agencies don't have the time to waste doing that nor, in general, are even interested in doing what you say. They really do want to catch bad guys while not trampling civil rights, believe it or not. That's not to say they all are perfect or card carrying ACLU members, but they do care about following the law.

Sure, but they want to protect their own before they do any of those things. That's why, for example, the police department here in Boston fought all the way to the 1st Circuit of Appeals to protect their officers who arrested the guy filming them beating a guy in Boston Common. That's why, for example, a guy who filmed cops was arrested, beaten, and had his phone erased. That's why these people [pixiq.com] were arrested.

And most importantly, that's why the police commissioner in the article is laying the ground work

They really do want to catch bad guys while not trampling civil rights, believe it or not.

Uh. No they don't. Believe it or not. They are not there for any kind of philosophical reason. Most cops don't know or care about philosophy any more than any members of a street gang. What they do know is what to say in order to fool gullible people like you into believing their bullshit. They are there because they love their job, which from their point of view is to beat the shit out of as many people as possible and maybe even occasionally get to shoot some. Don't ever, ever forget that they are not on

Well they do have a point though a small one. The real problem is though, is most police dept's in the US don't currently have 'on uniform' recording either. So you're only getting one side of the stop/arrest. In Canada about half of our services now use these when doing a stop/arrest. So the last thing I heard on the issue when you don't have one was: Cross you t's, dot your i's, and don't be a fucking retard and follow the rules and procedures when doing a stop.

I believe a simple solution that would prevent a lot of police brutality and sometimes even murder would be to require every police officer to record every encounter they have with a suspect. If there is no recording and no unbiased witnesses (as in someone who isn't a cop or other government agent) then the suspect is presumed 100% innocent without a trial. Full stop. And the recording should be immediately uploaded to a police server which no police officer has any direct access to without the presence of a witness representing the people. Ideally someone who was themselves a victim of police brutality. Or it could be uploaded somewhere public where anyone can watch the footage and where the police don't have any ability to remove or delete it. Time after time the police have shown that they cannot be trusted, that they will abuse their power if given half a chance, and that many are willing to act as badly as the most violent criminal. Any search for "police brutality" on youtube can tell you that. It's idiotic that we still treat them like they are some kind of angel impervious to even so much as an impure thought. They are just people. People who in many cases used to beat up other kids for their lunch money. Now they have a badge and a gun and no real limits on their actions. To them it's like heaven. To us, a nightmare.

Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne denounced the app, saying criminals would find it “useful” because it would alert them to where police stops were happening.

It sounds like someone needs to do their policing inside their private residence, instead of in public. If you just leave a cop sitting on the front seat of your car where any citizen can see it, you shouldn't expect your cop habit to remain a private matter.

In a supposedly free country (yeah, I know, who am I kidding?), shouldn't we always err on the side of liberty instead of trying to "pre-regulate" criminal activity?

Precisely! That goes with a lot of issues lately...gun control, gay marriage, etc...why do so many look for ways to reduce liberty just because they disagree with something? That's a byproduct of freedom, get used to it.

They get to beat up JUDGES [timesledger.com] with impunity, and nobody on the force sees anything. Sure, you can record all this data. The ACLU will do press releases Maybe they'll even get a judgement in Federal court. Won't stop the activity, because the state courts (including the one run by the judge who got judo-chopped) believe in the infallibility of cops.

I live in the toughest part of Minneapolis which is a fairly large city. It is bad enough so I have a carry permit and carry my pistol whenever I go out, even to mow the lawn. I've had to go for my weapon to avoid being robbed in the busy parking lot of a local store.

Watching drug deals going down is a normal thing to see, some bus shelters serve almost as drive through windows. The weekly police reports always reveal multiple felon in possession of firearms charges, guns taken away from juveniles, and people arrested for other crimes having weapons. Every week there are people shot, stabbed, and gravely injured.

I see police stops and searches all the time and sometimes stopped and filmed them. I keep a respectful distance, always make it apparent that I am taking pictures or video. I never try to interfere with or distract the officers while they are doing their job. I've never been asked to stop taking pictures, I've never been asked to step back or leave.

There are bloggers in this same neighborhood who have not had the same experience, some have had their phones/cameras seized as evidence, been threatened with arrest, and other things (or so they say on their blogs). But I have to say, these bloggers are loudmouths in their blogs and I have to believe that they probably push the envelope in real life as well.

Police car mounted infra-red LED's have been photographed in Montreal during the current student uprising. The LED's blast out infra-red, which while invisible to the human eye will overload digital camera sensors if they're not equipped with an IR filter (virtually all inexpensive cameras are not). The picture I saw was taken on a bus, the view out the sides of the bus were unaffected, but the windshield was completely white. The person taking the camera said the screen went white whenever the cop car was in its field of view.

Long story short, in Montreal at least, cops are clearly under orders to abuse and harass protesters. RIP Canada.

Good, I'm glad it helps people predict where the police are. The police are civil servants, employees of a public institution. They have no expectation of privacy and already too many material and political advantages over the people they're supposed to "serve and protect." Considering the recent militarization of police (why does the Tampa, FL police department have an APC that looks like a goddamn TANK?), the shift toward "less-lethal" weapons that police are more willing to use regularly against people who did nothing to deserve their application, and the culture in many police departments of lie-and-deny to cover for police abuse, it's frankly about time the people had something that pushes back and that the police can't do anything to stop.

One of the most heartening things I recall seeing on this front was the police overreach at the UC Davis protests. Go watch a video of it. Once Lt. John Adrian Pike starts pepper-spraying the seated protestors, count how many cell phone cameras go up, making sure the whole world can see exactly what happened from every angle. The police chief tried to say the cops felt threatened and were penned in, but widely-available footage proved that she was lying through her teeth. Were it not for the recordings, she may have gotten away with it and dishonestly discredited the protestors' side of the story.

Between this, "Cop Recorder" (another iPhone/Android app), and Trapster, we at least are developing our own toolkit to use to force police to be accountable and considerate of the people. If it makes the police's job harder, oh well, boo-hoo, they can cry me a river. Being a cop isn't SUPPOSED to be easy and if they get fancy tech toys like tasers, disorientation strobes, and military-style body armor, it's only fair that the people get their own tools to make sure the police cannot hide their misdeeds.

Psychological connotation. The police and the military are not the same organization and do not have the same purpose. Police are supposed to maintain and protect the peace within a society. The military is a tool for waging war against foreign aggressors. By outfitting the police with military-style equipment, even if it's strictly defensive equipment, we give the impression that the police are now like the military in that they are here to make war. This is not the message we want to send, even indir

The problem with the police wearing body armor is that they are often ultra-violent, sadistic criminals themselves. If a cop comes to your house with the intent to kill you (a possibility that I may soon personally face) it is much more difficult to defend yourself even if you do own a gun. Ideally you would be able to buy armor piercing ammunition, but of course that is considered illegal for a regular citizen. It is perfectly legal for the cop to buy it though. God forbid we should allow any fight between

It is also pretty handy to know where the police are if you, you know, want to know what your tax money is being used for.

I used to work third shift, and took lunch every day around 2:30 AM. Every day, I would drive down to the gas station a block from work and get a muffin and some coffee, and every day, there would be a minimum of 5 cop cars and 8-10 officers hanging out drinking free coffee. According to the clerk, they pretty much hang out there all night, shooting the shit, drinking the coffee, doing fuck all.

I pass one cop every morning on my way to work now and the guy is asleep almost every time I see him. He's hidden back behind a store (where he must think nobody notices him) in his cruiser, head thrown back, mouth wide open almost every time. Part of me really wants to walk up and knock on his window just to see what his response to me catching him asleep is, but self-preservation obviously keeps me from making a big deal about it.

Still, part of me wants to turn in a complaint (if he's on the job, he damn sure shouldn't be sleeping), but after watching this video [youtube.com], I think turning in a complaint form would be a quicker way for me getting arrested and thrown in a cell than knocking on the officer's window while he's sleeping.

It goes further than that. If the police are telling the truth about what happened. If their story is not made up. Then the video would help the prosecution with its case. Not hurt it. As I've said before, my state used to have a policy of video taping every DUI roadblock, but they stopped because it hurt the prosecution more than it helped them. The videos tended to corroborate the story of the defendant. It is contemptible that we as a society do not force the police to record every interaction they have

They need "reasonable suspicion" to perform a terry stop. And it must be something specific that the cop can point to. Being black and American is not sufficient. Why is how you react to it important? The smartest thing to do is just to STFU because talking to the police is always stupid, but I did that and was still arrested on contempt of cop charges which included a felony. Even though some things are legal doesn't mean the police are going to like it, and if they get angry with you you'll be lucky if al